Congressman: American schools should be modeled after madrassas

kraychik · July 12, 2012

The 'National' part, I guess. How does that fit into the International Cominform?

It doesn't, and therein lies the primary distinguishing factor between Nazism and communism. I think I've already said it several times in this thread, but I'll say it again: Nazism has an inherent racist component that is directly connected to its form of racial-nationalism, whereas communism's ideology in its purest sense is international in its focus and "post-racial" (although in practise it was quite racist). Both still had expansionist ambitions. Also, don't forget that racism still existed in the Soviet Union, although it wasn't officially codified on paper in some ways.

Edited July 12, 2012 by kraychik

kraychik · July 12, 2012

I guess Mitt Romney is a Leftist then.

Romneycare isn't national. Not by a long shot.

Edited July 12, 2012 by kraychik

DogOnPorch · July 12, 2012

It doesn't, and therein lies the primary distinguishing factor between Nazism and communism. I think I've already said it several times in this thread, but I'll say it again: Nazism has an inherent racist component that is directly connected to its form of racial-nationalism, whereas communism's ideology in its purest sense is international in its focus and "post-racial" (although in practise it was quite racist). Both still had expansionist ambitions. Also, don't forget that racism still existed in the Soviet Union, although it wasn't officially codified on paper in some ways.

So the Nazi big-wigs, in your opinion, didn't enjoy their own private empires? Goering for example.....

kraychik · July 12, 2012

So the Nazi big-wigs, in your opinion, didn't enjoy their own private empires? Goering for example.....

Same thing in the Soviet Union, you know. Leftism leads to this sort of consequence. The greater the government power, the greater the corruption, and the greater the oppression of ordinary folks. Socialism is part of the same family. It's all leftism. I use terms like leftism and statism interchangeably.

DogOnPorch · July 12, 2012

Same thing in the Soviet Union, you know. Leftism leads to this sort of consequence. The greater the government power, the greater the corruption, and the greater the oppression of ordinary folks. Socialism is part of the same family. It's all leftism. I use terms like leftism and statism interchangeably.

Thank goodness Barbarossa was a figment of some diabolical (probably Jewish) historian's imagination!! A lot of folks could have died!

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Edited July 12, 2012 by DogOnPorch

kraychik · July 12, 2012

Thank goodness Barbarossa was a figment of some diabolical (probably Jewish) historian's imagination!! A lot of folks could have died!

:lol:

I don't understand your joke.

Shady · July 12, 2012

So the Nazi big-wigs, in your opinion, didn't enjoy their own private empires? Goering for example.....

So did Mao. So did Stalin. So does Castro. So does Chavez, etc.

Black Dog · July 12, 2012

Context matters. While government spending as a share of GDP skyrocketed for a brief period of a few years during WWII in the USA, it quickly dropped back down to previous levels of around 15%. The same is not true for Nazi Germany, which admittedly had a relatively short reign of control.

The 60% figure for Nazi Germany and the ~50% cent figure for the U.S. are both historic highs and both were hit in 1943. As far as I can tell, in the pre-war years (1935-1938), Germany's spending as %of GDP averaged about 13%. In the post-war period the U.S. average has hovered around 20 per cent.

Also, government spending as a share of GDP in Nazi Germany was substantially higher than in the USA.

No doubt. But so what? You know what government spending as percentage of GDP tells us? How big the government is. That's all. On all other factors it stands mute. It does not tell us anything on the extent of the centralisation of government control over an economy, which you claimed previously. All you have to do is look at the internatonal rankings to see there's no correlation between "freedom" and the size of government.

I've already addressed all of attempts to draw parallels between Nazi Germany and the contemporary right, anyways.

You've addressed them, just not particularly well.

Canuckistani · July 12, 2012

Socialism is the state owning the means of production. Wasn't true in Germany. The rest of the arguments about GDP etc, is just nonsense. If you have private enterprise, it's not a socialist state.

DogOnPorch · July 12, 2012

Socialism is the state owning the means of production. Wasn't true in Germany. The rest of the arguments about GDP etc, is just nonsense. If you have private enterprise, it's not a socialist state.

Indeed. Industry was privately owned and not controled by the government or the army. I believe it was Churchill who famously bought stock (or joked about it) in Krupp Steel after hearing of the appeasement. Krupp, a foe of the Nazis, turned to Hitler once he promised to destroy the unions. A very socialist act, that!

:lol:

kraychik · July 12, 2012

Socialism is the state owning the means of production. Wasn't true in Germany. The rest of the arguments about GDP etc, is just nonsense. If you have private enterprise, it's not a socialist state.

This a technical point, but not a practical one. Suppose an industry is privately owned, but regulated in such a manner (through licensing, oversight boards, etc) that the government directs its operations to a great degree, what's the difference this an socialism? in this situation the industry is still directed by the government, while the industry is still technically privately-owned.

Consider a scenario where exorbitant tax rates placed on a business or industry, what is practical difference between that and socialism? In such a situation a government bleeds an industry, which is similar to the government directly owning the industry.

You're focusing on technicalities and thinking outside the box and seeing that leftism can be implemented in many forms. This is another manifestation of centralisation of control, despite the mini-economic "empires" as DogOnPorch put it, that existed in Nazi Germany.

Black Dog · July 12, 2012

Indeed. Industry was privately owned and not controled by the government or the army. I believe it was Churchill who famously bought stock (or joked about it) in Krupp Steel after hearing of the appeasement. Krupp, a foe of the Nazis, turned to Hitler once he promised to destroy the unions. A very socialist act, that!

Yes but it's important to remember that what private industry there was existed at the pleasure of and in service to the state. IOW they didn't own the means of production, but they controlled it.

Point here is you can't simply boil these things down to a catch phrase. There's a reason socialism and fascism are considered distinct ideologies despite whatever traits they may share. Ditto fascism and capitalism. These similarities/differences would make an interesting discussion, but that's not what's happening here. All we have here is some troll spouting off silliness that just amounts to "LULz ur doodz r NAZIS lol!!!1!" And to what end? Why? Because he's a troll and who the fuck knows why they do what they do.

kraychik · July 12, 2012

No doubt. But so what? You know what government spending as percentage of GDP tells us? How big the government is. That's all. On all other factors it stands mute. It does not tell us anything on the extent of the centralisation of government control over an economy, which you claimed previously. All you have to do is look at the internatonal rankings to see there's no correlation between "freedom" and the size of government.

There is a huge relationship between freedom and government spending as a share of GDP. There are two broad categories of individual freedom, which doesn't need quotation marks placed around the term in a cynically leftist manner: the economic and social spheres. Bear in mind that government spending as a share of GDP is only part of the picture when it comes to determining government encroachment on the economic freedom of the individual. There is also borrowing without taxation, which essentially amounts to deferred taxation. So when the Nazis borrowed money (and when contemporary governments do it) without raising taxes, it's deferred taxation. If the Nazis didn't do this deference of taxation as a consequence of borrowing, government spending would've approached GDP, or exceeded it. I can't recall the specifics because it's been so long ago that I looked at this.

Edited July 12, 2012 by kraychik

DogOnPorch · July 12, 2012

Yes but it's important to remember that what private industry there was existed at the pleasure of and in service to the state. IOW they didn't own the means of production, but they controlled it.

Point here is you can't simply boil these things down to a catch phrase. There's a reason socialism and fascism are considered distinct ideologies despite whatever traits they may share. Ditto fascism and capitalism. These similarities/differences would make an interesting discussion, but that's not what's happening here. All we have here is some troll spouting off silliness that just amounts to "LULz ur doodz r NAZIS lol!!!1!" And to what end? Why? Because he's a troll and who the fuck knows why they do what they do.

I find part of it was party sanctioned corruption. A fellow like Himmler was expected to carve out his own piece of the action. But, I have to disagree that industry was under the control of the government. That, for example, there were dozens of different competing designs of tanks and aircraft making it to production illustrates this.

Edited July 12, 2012 by DogOnPorch

kraychik · July 12, 2012

Yes but it's important to remember that what private industry there was existed at the pleasure of and in service to the state. IOW they didn't own the means of production, but they controlled it.

Point here is you can't simply boil these things down to a catch phrase. There's a reason socialism and fascism are considered distinct ideologies despite whatever traits they may share. Ditto fascism and capitalism. These similarities/differences would make an interesting discussion, but that's not what's happening here. All we have here is some troll spouting off silliness that just amounts to "LULz ur doodz r NAZIS lol!!!1!" And to what end? Why? Because he's a troll and who the fuck knows why they do what they do.

The common ideological thread that unifies the contemporary left to Nazism is the perception of the supremacy of the collective over the individual. To the contemporary right wing, this attitude is antithetical to our core beliefs. Without this attitude, such tyranny cannot come into existence. The very immunity that the West enjoys from tyranny is the contemporary right wing, where the left with happily play "follow the leader" and swallow all sorts of erosions of personal freedom (and responsibility) in order to accomplish the so-called "greater good".

You also exposed your own leftism when you stated in clear English that government spending as a share of GDP has nothing to do with freedom. This tells us that you don't view economic freedom as a valid component of broader freedom. That was another great moment I can take credit for in getting a leftist to expose him or herself.

kraychik · July 12, 2012

I find part of it was state sanctioned corruption. A fellow like Himmler was expected to carve out his own piece of the action. But, I have to disagree that industry was under the control of the government. That, for example, there were dozens of different competing designs of tanks and aircraft making it to production illustrates this.

You don't think the Nazi government had regular meetings with manufacturing firms to keep them abreast of exactly what their military needs were? More basically, the entire manufacturing industry was dependent on government demand. At its core, this is leftism.

Canuckistani · July 12, 2012

On the whole, except in a few cases, nationalization of the economy of the fascist states developed on the basis of private property and of private initiative, but it was subordinated to the tasks of the state
As he wrote in 1936, Gaetano Salvemini, saying the responsibility of taxpayers to private capitalist enterprises, the state thus covers failures of the capitalists' profits - business and private individual; loss - public and social work ", see Privatization revenues and socialization of losses . The fascist government approved pursuit of private profit and gave significant concessions to large corporations, requiring instead that all of their economic activities serve the public interest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_fascism#General_characteristics_of_fascist_economies

That latter sounds like the US of today. It doesn't sound like socialism.

Black Dog · July 12, 2012

There is a huge relationship between freedom and government spending as a share of GDP.

That's why Myanmar/Burma, with the lowest % of government spending to GDP and the lowest tax burden, is the mostest free-est place on earth. And why countries like Denmark (51% of GDP), Sweden (52.5 of GDP) and Germany (43.7% of GDP) are repressive hellholes consistently ranked in the basement of the global economic freedoms.

:rolleyes:

There are two broad categories of individual freedom, which doesn't need quotation marks placed around the term in a cynically leftist manner: the economic and social spheres.

I put freedom in quotes because, like the rest of the terms you use, you don't bother to put any parameters around it. It's an empty catch-all phrase.

Bear in mind that government spending as a share of GDP is only part of the picture when it comes to determining government encroachment on the economic freedom of the individual. There is also borrowing without taxation, which essentially amounts to deferred taxation. So when the Nazis borrowed money (and when contemporary governments do it) without raising taxes, it's deferred taxation. If the Nazis didn't do this deference of taxation as a consequence of borrowing, government spending would've approached GDP, or exceeded it. I can't recall the specifics because it's been so long ago that I looked at this.

Fascinating. What's your point?

DogOnPorch · July 12, 2012

You don't think the Nazi government had regular meetings with manufacturing firms to keep them abreast of exactly what their military needs were? More basically, the entire manufacturing industry was dependent on government demand. At its core, this is leftism.

Hitler used the position of Inpector General of Armored Forces to try to standardize tank design. This failed. Why so if everything is under the thumb of centralization?

kraychik · July 12, 2012

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_fascism#General_characteristics_of_fascist_economies

That latter sounds like the US of today. It doesn't sound like socialism.

What you don't understand is that socialism and fascism are essentially the same thing. The bigger the government, the smaller the individual. The more leftist the political establishment, the more of this corruption you're going to see (Obama bailing out GM, absolving GE of paying taxes, fraud through Solyndra, buying off unions to fuel his campaign, etc). Leftism is statism, and fascism and socialism belong to this family of anti-individual ideologies.

cybercoma · July 12, 2012

This a technical point, but not a practical one.

No. You just haven't any subtlety of thinking. You don't understand the complexities and nuance of political theories or the way they've been implemented historically. You want to re-write political philosophies to suit your unsophisticated in-group, out-group mentality that sees everyone who doesn't hold your extreme views as being adherents to the absurd strawman philosophy of the Left that you've created. The world is more complicated than Left and Right, which you've acknowledged but have shown you're completely incapable of reconciling with your beliefs or actually understanding. Of course, I wouldn't expect someone whose MO is to just troll the hell out of message boards looking to incite people to anger with insults and lies to actually care about having an intelligent and rational discussion. Edited July 12, 2012 by cybercoma

cybercoma · July 12, 2012

The common ideological thread that unifies the contemporary left to Nazism is the perception of the supremacy of the collective over the individual.

Supremacy of the collective? Except for the political dissidents, the homos, the disabled, the Gypsies, and the Jews. But collectively everyone else. :rolleyes:

cybercoma · July 12, 2012

You don't think the Nazi government had regular meetings with manufacturing firms to keep them abreast of exactly what their military needs were? More basically, the entire manufacturing industry was dependent on government demand. At its core, this is leftism.

So the US is a socialist state, implementing Marxist ideology, because they buy their military hardware and other goods from private firms. Got it.

Edited July 12, 2012 by cybercoma

Canuckistani · July 12, 2012

So the US is a socialist state, implementing Marxist ideology, because they buy their military hardware and other goods from private firms. Got it.

The US is a mixed economy, same as all the other Western countries. There's no pure laissez faire capitalist western country, and no pure socialist one either. Because it happens that the middle way works the best, ideology be damned. The only question is how much the state gets in involved and where.

kraychik · July 12, 2012

That's why Myanmar/Burma, with the lowest % of government spending to GDP and the lowest tax burden, is the mostest free-est place on earth. And why countries like Denmark (51% of GDP), Sweden (52.5 of GDP) and Germany (43.7% of GDP) are repressive hellholes consistently ranked in the basement of the global economic freedoms.

Well, you're making a pretty absurd comparson here if you're comparing Myanmar/Burma to Denmark or Sweden. There are factors that Myanmar/Burma deal with that are unique to it when comparing it to Denmark or Sweden. If you want to compare similar countries (geography, resources, population, cultural homogeneity, etc) with varying degrees of governmental intervention into the economy and then examine freedom and prosperity, we can do that. It is clear that have no intention to, or are incapable of, having a serious and honest discussion about this.

I put freedom in quotes because, like the rest of the terms you use, you don't bother to put any parameters around it. It's an empty catch-all phrase.

I obviously overestimated the familiarity of some of this thread's participants with the term freedom as it is understood by conservatives. Not freedom to the fruits of the labours of others, of course, but the freedom from government coercion in the broadest sense possible. I shouldn't have to explain this.

Edited July 12, 2012 by kraychik